User talk:Altitude2010

Nice work[edit]

Nice work on Morning_Glory_(2010_film). You do provide edit summaries occasionally but I would appreciate if you would provide them on almost all of your edits, it really makes things a lot easier for other editors. If you are not already familiar with Wikipedia you may find the explanation fo the basic rules worth noting, and the Project Film guidelines can be useful too. Thanks. -- Horkana (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I encourage you to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide edit summaries.

Please also check out the Project Film guidelines. When posting box office figures it is important to keep in mind WP:WORLDVIEW (Wikipedia is not the USA) and avoid terms like domestic and foreign and instead say United States and international. -- Horkana (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys & Aliens (and why you rock)[edit]

Just wanted to say what an awesome job you've been doing working on content there. Sorry I've bumped into your efforts in a negative way on a few occasions. How, after all these years, I never realized that Western is capitalized is beyond me. I will WP:TROUT myself at my earliest convenience. :D Millahnna (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you place colons rather than commas before every quote? Also, there's no reason not to link to iPad. --Boycool (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Altitude! I wanted to let you know that we have guidelines for writing "Marketing" sections here. The section at Cowboys & Aliens is rather long and should be more straightforward in explaining a marketing approach. There is a lot of indiscriminate detail that does not need to be mentioned, especially when the film will be in the open soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erik, thanks very much for your remarks. Even though the marketing section is a little long and detailed, it does not merely describe the trailers and TV spots. It shows what the director wants to reveal to the audience before the release of this highly anticipated film and why some elements are disclosed and others are not. It also contains relevant comments on the TV spots, trailers or posters from different websites. Altitude2010 (May 25, 2011)

If you say so. I don't think that the article can be a Good Article if there is so much indiscriminate detail in the "Marketing" section. The Comic Con paragraph about Harrison Ford says nothing interesting, the November 2010 indiscriminately describes a trailer with Favreau's quote about the film in general being falsely applied to the trailer, repeating observations about the shackle (when the film's plot summary will be explaining all that, we don't need to try to understand the shackle through promotional materials), analyzing what was slightly different about new trailers, etc. Please see Valkyrie (film)#Marketing as an example. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I disagree with your commentary. The Comic Con paragraph about Harrison Ford is very interesting and reports a funny event about the marketing of the film. Favreau's quotes about the film are not falsely applied to the trailers. The shackle is one of the key elements in the marketing of the film. Altitude2010 (May 25, 2011)

How is the Comic Con paragraph related to marketing? The only key detail to report is that it was Harrison Ford's first time at Comic Con. The whole event about being in handcuffs, while funny, is less relevant. In addition, I understand the point of the shackle, but you're engaging in proseline about it. You should be able to explain the shackle's presence in promotional materials in 2-3 sentences. I added my comments to the talk page to centralize the discussion and raise awareness for others. Let's discuss there. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, obviously, the director and main cast members were at Comic Con to promote the film. The way Harrison Ford appeared at the convention was very unusual and was definitely meant to market the film. So, it is relevant to talk about it in the marketing section. The article shows how a key element of the film, the shackle, is present in the different marketing materials. Altitude2010 (May 25, 2011)

There is a discussion at Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing. I am not trying to offend you by performing a rewrite, but the guidelines for writing "Marketing" sections and other sections are based on best practices that get film articles to Good Article or Featured Article status. We need to reference reliable sources and extrapolate the highlights to use under the related topic. For example, I did not see any strong discussion about the shackle in the sources used. If we can find one, we can use it. The guidelines are based on consensus and other guidelines and policies, which is what I tried to follow in my write-up. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cowboys & Aliens (film). Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Cowboys & Aliens.The discussion is about the topic Cowboys & Aliens (film). Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that there is no consensus? Did you read the "Marketing" discussion on the film article's talk page? There are three editors that are in favor of the more concise writeup. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, including commenters at the WikiProject it's 6:1. Altitude2010, if you continue reverting to your preferred version you will be blocked for edit warring. Fences&Windows 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah why do you say "has no consensus", you haven't even typed one word on the talk page! Add your thoughts to the film's talk page, or quit reverting. Thanks. —Mike Allen 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I confirm that there is no consensus about Erik's version and already said what I thought about his version in this talk page. His version is too short and very vague. It removed many details about the marketing of the film. Not enough details about the Comic Con event which is an essential part of the marketing and no details about the elements that the director wants to show before the film is released. No references to some marketing tools like the posters of the film. The chronology of the marketing campaign is not precise either. My version is based on many Internet sources and contains many elements of the marketing which were discussed online. That's why my version is by far much better. Altitude2010 (June 3, 2011)

Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing says otherwise. That looks like a consensus. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion in the talk page. Why have you not incorporated any elements of my writeup? Please read WP:PROSELINE for why we can't string together sentences starting with dates. In addition, you're referencing blogs that provide an anyone-can-do-that descriptions of the posters. Is it really worth comparing the US and international posters when only "the angle and the color scheme" are different? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My draft describes an exact and precise chronology of the campaign for the film, whereas your draft is not well structured. The sources I used are reliable. It is worth it comparing both posters and was discussed on many websites. All the elements of your draft are discussed in other sections. It is not necessary to repeat them in the marketing section. Altitude2010 (June 7, 2011)

I have reverted your writeup because it is not supported by consensus like mine was. You are continuing to push your preferred draft against consensus, and you were blocked for it one time already. If you persist in pushing your draft, I will report you to be blocked again. You have failed to engage in discussion on the talk page or to even acknowledge that other editors support my writeup. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Cowboys & Aliens redux.The discussion is about the topic Cowboys & Aliens (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, your draft is poorly writen and you did not do any research about the film. So, stop changing my draft whereas I submitted a new draft taking into account the different comments made on the talk page and complying with the Wikipedia guidelines. And stop saying that I did not engage in the dicussion on this talk page. It is totally untrue. Altitude2010 (June 7, 2011)

You have never commented at Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film), which is where other editors indicated their support for my writeup. You have denied that there is consensus for my writeup as well. Is that not true? You have been the sole contributor of this article. I recommend reading WP:OWN and engaging in discussion on the film article's talk page. In the meantime, we should talk about incorporating any elements of your writeup in mine. You cannot unilaterally restore your own draft against consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Cowboys & Aliens (film). You were warned and continued to restore your favoured text against a clear consensus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 01:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cowboys & Aliens (film). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at ANI, you have absolutely no edits whatsoever to Talk:Cowboys & Aliens (film). Is there a particular reason for that? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a discussion about your recent edits here. You are welcome to explain your actions there. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Altitude2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

will make useful contributions and try to find consensus

Decline reason:

I am very pleased to know that. However, an editor who has been conducting the same edit war over a substantial period, and has shamelessly returned to the same edit war after the expiry of a block, needs to give a much better reason for an unblock than that. I suggest that you accept the one week block, and during that week carefully consider how you will edit when the block expires. That way you should be sufficiently prepared that you can avoid falling into the same error again, and being blocked for much longer, perhaps even indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Altitude2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I accept consensus version and will make only useful contributions accepted by consensus

Decline reason:

That was just a rephrase of the last decline, some 30 minutes before you posted this one. I see no reason to change JamesBWatson's suggestion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Hello, I recommend reading Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]